In interpreting the Bible, it's important not to misuse an argument of Paul's, which was an argument about a specific issue, as if it is an argument about a completely different issue.
This happens a lot with the popular issue of grace v Law (so-called); and the not-so-modern question of Arminianism v Calvinism.
Paul argued that while the Law hadn't been successful at making men righteous, grace achieved righteousness and was imparting it powerfully. Grace taught believers to live ethically. Therefore grace superseded the Law as the means of righteousness. That's what Paul meant.
It's a misuse of Paul's argument to pit grace against righteousness. Clearing that up should eliminate any popular, modern licence for continuing in sin.
Neither was Paul's argument an argument for grace v modern-Judaism. It's becoming increasingly popular amongst many Christians to venerate the observance of modern-Judaism, and to incorporate a mix of some of its elements into their own Christian lifestyle and eschatology. But modern-Judaism is in fact something which could never even have been conceived in Paul's day, not even by the Jews. By Law Paul meant (and his readers would have understood), Moses' complete system of Law - the package deal. They either kept it all, or they were guilty of all. Adjusted ways of keeping the Law, such as we see in modern-Judaism and even in Messianic-Judaism, are far from what Moses or Paul would have termed Moses' Law.
(Modern-Judaism is not the same as Moses' Law: it's something unknown to Moses' Law and to the Prophets. In fact modern-Judaism's methods of 'keeping' Moses' Law would have been outlawed by the very Law which modern-Judaism purports to keep! Modern-Judaism was a later invention of unbelieving Jews, after the destruction of the Temple in AD70 when it became forever impossible to adhere to the outlines of Moses' Law.)
Grace v Law was a pertinent issue for the early Church in Paul's day, because had they wished to, it would still have been possible for the churches to keep Moses' Law, seeing the Temple, the Levitical priesthood and everything associated with it (such as the written genealogies which were required to authenticate the priesthood) were all still functioning in Jerusalem according to Moses' Law at that time. It was a crucial question for the Church - and the Apostles and elders answered it - but AD70 forever eliminated the very question itself. Any contemporary questions to do with 'keeping' Moses' 'law' can't therefore quote Paul directly. The Bible has only two concepts: Law (Moses' Law), and then grace - nothing else.
Being clear about Paul's and the Bible's concepts of grace and Law therefore ought to spare us from going down the increasingly popular tangents that: Christians today should be incorporating elements of modern-Judaism (such as 'feast' days) into our lifestyle; that God still requires national-Israel to 'observe' the 'feasts'; that all nations shall again be obligated to keep the Feast, during a future millennium; that the Gospel is really nothing more than an unexpected interlude for Gentiles, between God's real kingdom-purposes for Israel; and that there may be an alternative way of salvation for Jews in modern-Judaism even without believing in Jesus.
This happens a lot with the popular issue of grace v Law (so-called); and the not-so-modern question of Arminianism v Calvinism.
Grace v Law
Paul's argument in grace v Law was not an argument for grace v righteousness. The importance of righteousness was always a given. The only dispute was how to obtain or achieve righteousness. But many today are making it about whether or not righteous living is truly a necessity - but that's not what Paul was on about.Paul argued that while the Law hadn't been successful at making men righteous, grace achieved righteousness and was imparting it powerfully. Grace taught believers to live ethically. Therefore grace superseded the Law as the means of righteousness. That's what Paul meant.
It's a misuse of Paul's argument to pit grace against righteousness. Clearing that up should eliminate any popular, modern licence for continuing in sin.
Neither was Paul's argument an argument for grace v modern-Judaism. It's becoming increasingly popular amongst many Christians to venerate the observance of modern-Judaism, and to incorporate a mix of some of its elements into their own Christian lifestyle and eschatology. But modern-Judaism is in fact something which could never even have been conceived in Paul's day, not even by the Jews. By Law Paul meant (and his readers would have understood), Moses' complete system of Law - the package deal. They either kept it all, or they were guilty of all. Adjusted ways of keeping the Law, such as we see in modern-Judaism and even in Messianic-Judaism, are far from what Moses or Paul would have termed Moses' Law.
(Modern-Judaism is not the same as Moses' Law: it's something unknown to Moses' Law and to the Prophets. In fact modern-Judaism's methods of 'keeping' Moses' Law would have been outlawed by the very Law which modern-Judaism purports to keep! Modern-Judaism was a later invention of unbelieving Jews, after the destruction of the Temple in AD70 when it became forever impossible to adhere to the outlines of Moses' Law.)
Grace v Law was a pertinent issue for the early Church in Paul's day, because had they wished to, it would still have been possible for the churches to keep Moses' Law, seeing the Temple, the Levitical priesthood and everything associated with it (such as the written genealogies which were required to authenticate the priesthood) were all still functioning in Jerusalem according to Moses' Law at that time. It was a crucial question for the Church - and the Apostles and elders answered it - but AD70 forever eliminated the very question itself. Any contemporary questions to do with 'keeping' Moses' 'law' can't therefore quote Paul directly. The Bible has only two concepts: Law (Moses' Law), and then grace - nothing else.
Being clear about Paul's and the Bible's concepts of grace and Law therefore ought to spare us from going down the increasingly popular tangents that: Christians today should be incorporating elements of modern-Judaism (such as 'feast' days) into our lifestyle; that God still requires national-Israel to 'observe' the 'feasts'; that all nations shall again be obligated to keep the Feast, during a future millennium; that the Gospel is really nothing more than an unexpected interlude for Gentiles, between God's real kingdom-purposes for Israel; and that there may be an alternative way of salvation for Jews in modern-Judaism even without believing in Jesus.
Arminianism v Calvinism
Calvinists argue with Arminians over certain questions, and cite statements made by Paul as their authorities. But what if Paul's statements, particularly his statements in Romans 9-11, weren't about the same questions? What if Paul's statements were in answer to an entirely different issue?
That wouldn't necessarily invalidate the popular question which Arminians and Calvinists debate today - but it would make Paul's statements, on which Calvinists rely, inadmissible as direct evidence regarding their issue.
So what issues was Paul responding to?
To begin with, the design of Paul's Epistle to the Romans is such that chapters 9-11 don't appear to have had the purpose of putting a disclaimer, a qualifier or a limitation on the thesis which he had just finished presenting (in chapters 1-8, his thesis that salvation was available for all who believe). Rather, it appears to be Paul's response to objections which he anticipates (to his thesis). Otherwise his statements would seem as irrelevant and even as contradictory as a tennis ball suddenly landing in a football field in the middle of the game-play!
Seeing salvation is by grace through faith to all who believe, without the works of the Law, and regardless of ethnicity (as Paul had asserted) - and seeing Israel was predominantly not believing in the Gospel (as the believers at Rome were observing) - did all that mean God's promises to the Jews had somehow failed?
That wouldn't necessarily invalidate the popular question which Arminians and Calvinists debate today - but it would make Paul's statements, on which Calvinists rely, inadmissible as direct evidence regarding their issue.
So what issues was Paul responding to?
To begin with, the design of Paul's Epistle to the Romans is such that chapters 9-11 don't appear to have had the purpose of putting a disclaimer, a qualifier or a limitation on the thesis which he had just finished presenting (in chapters 1-8, his thesis that salvation was available for all who believe). Rather, it appears to be Paul's response to objections which he anticipates (to his thesis). Otherwise his statements would seem as irrelevant and even as contradictory as a tennis ball suddenly landing in a football field in the middle of the game-play!
Seeing salvation is by grace through faith to all who believe, without the works of the Law, and regardless of ethnicity (as Paul had asserted) - and seeing Israel was predominantly not believing in the Gospel (as the believers at Rome were observing) - did all that mean God's promises to the Jews had somehow failed?
Had God deceived their nation?
Was it unjust of God to offer salvation on His own terms - that is, by grace through faith?
And if Israel missed-out because of unbelief, was that now unjust of God?
How could Paul's Gospel be right, seeing it implies that God raises up men and nations for purposes which don't necessarily mean they are automatically saved?
Then some went the other way and wondered, Is God no longer interested in saving Jews at all?
These are the kinds of issues Paul was responding to.
In answer to those questions, and in order to defend his thesis (that salvation is available to all who believe), Paul went on to appeal to God's sovereignty, to precedent, and to Scripture in both the Law and the Prophets. God Who Promised salvation for all nations through faith, chose the descendants of Jacob (Israel) to be the custodians of the Promise, and gave them the Law (temporarily) until the time of the Promise drew near, then He sent forth His Son, and the promised-salvation could then be received by faith (as promised) - and only by faith (seeing the Law had been unable to save anyone). None of that was unjust, nor a breach of Promise - rather, it was the exact scenario the Scriptures had foreseen. That's what Paul was saying.
To say Paul's statements are directly about the tenets of Calvinism, then, is like reading a recipe for a cake and applying it instead to instructions for changing a flat-tyre. (Not that instructions specifically about how to or how not to change spare tyres don't also exist. It's just that these aren't them - not directly, anyway!)
In answer to those questions, and in order to defend his thesis (that salvation is available to all who believe), Paul went on to appeal to God's sovereignty, to precedent, and to Scripture in both the Law and the Prophets. God Who Promised salvation for all nations through faith, chose the descendants of Jacob (Israel) to be the custodians of the Promise, and gave them the Law (temporarily) until the time of the Promise drew near, then He sent forth His Son, and the promised-salvation could then be received by faith (as promised) - and only by faith (seeing the Law had been unable to save anyone). None of that was unjust, nor a breach of Promise - rather, it was the exact scenario the Scriptures had foreseen. That's what Paul was saying.
To say Paul's statements are directly about the tenets of Calvinism, then, is like reading a recipe for a cake and applying it instead to instructions for changing a flat-tyre. (Not that instructions specifically about how to or how not to change spare tyres don't also exist. It's just that these aren't them - not directly, anyway!)
Conclusion
The good news of salvation by grace is available for all who believe in Jesus, teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and keeps us free from obligation to Moses' Law and to other man-made obligations, forever.
No comments:
Post a Comment